South Africa v Australia, 2nd Test, Port Elizabeth, 2nd day

Australia doze at wrong moment

The Test was moving at a slow pace on a sluggish pitch while South Africa batted and they may have lulled Australia into a distracted mindset which proved costly late in the day

Daniel Brettig in Port Elizabeth

February 21, 2014

Comments: 28 | Text size: A | A
#politeenquiries: Can any bowler in the world stop AB?

Unable to find his permission slip to join the rest of Springfield Elementary on their afternoon trip to the chocolate factory, Bart Simpson is consigned to the numbing task of licking envelopes in the office of Principal Skinner. As he does so, the wall clock ticks slowly and tortuously towards 3pm and the end of the school day. Losing momentum with every stroke, it eventually begins to tick backwards.

Something of Bart's interminable wait ensnared Australia on the second day in Port Elizabeth, as they were frustrated and ultimately brought to heel by a South African side well attuned to playing Test matches at the kind of deliberate pace unfamiliar to, and unloved by, the touring captain Michael Clarke and coach Darren Lehmann. Graeme Smith's men cannot afford to lose this Test, and on a pitch where application and determination can be enough to keep out most kinds of bowling, they pushed doggedly towards a position from where it was difficult to do so. Then, ball in hand, they swarmed over an opposition that chose precisely the wrong moment for a seaside siesta.

Australia did not do a whole lot wrong in the field, erring slightly in places but never transgressing so badly as to drop a catch or make a poor misfield. But they were slowly, gradually lulled into a sense that the game was going nowhere - never more so than when JP Duminy's batting partners Vernon Philander and Wayne Parnell soaked up 74 balls between them for 16 runs after lunch - and when asked to bat for 25 overs before the close showed the kind of inattention that can cost a Test match. Suddenly the clock ticking backwards was free-wheeling forward on South Africa's schedule.

 
 
What followed was a chastening reminder of how the Australian top order is still worryingly erratic despite the team's recent success
 

The first day had been a good one for the tourists, given the minimal life to be found in the pitch. Central to their corralling of South Africa had been the harvesting of early wickets with the new ball, thanks to an excellent first spell by Ryan Harris and a decent one from Mitchell Johnson. Harris took the first over from the Park Drive End and Johnson followed up, downwind, from the Duck Pond End. So comfortable they had seemed at these ends that it was odd to see Harris and Johnson commence from opposite directions with the second new ball, particularly as the breeze had not shifted.

It might have been a minor issue, but the essential truth of the morning was that the ball did not swing, and neither Harris nor Johnson overly troubled Duminy or AB de Villiers. Given the narrow window for the ball to offer some assistance and the evidence of the first day, this was the sort of oversight Australia have seldom made in recent times under the guidance of Lehmann and the pace bowling coach Craig McDermott.

For the remainder of the innings there was little either coach could do, apart from encourage their men to keep things tight and be patient. If Duminy and de Villiers declined to push the game forward at any sort of proactive rate, they were also averse to making mistakes. Both strolled to centuries, while Vernon Philander and Wayne Parnell were less concerned with batting than occupation. These passages were torpid, straining the endurance of Australia's batsmen, who ultimately walked out to bat after tea with senses just slightly deadened by the experience of their longest stint in the field since Hyderabad in March 2013.

What followed was a chastening reminder of how the Australian top order is still worryingly erratic despite the team's recent success. Chris Rogers has not enjoyed South Africa to date, and was close to lbw against Dale Steyn before falling in the same manner to Philander - he would not have missed either ball during the rich vein of form he found late in the Ashes series. A short-term fix for those contests against England, Rogers is now under pressure for his place, particularly as Shane Watson regathers fitness.


South Africa's fielders successfully appeal for an LBW decision against Chris Rogers, South Africa v Australia, 2nd Test, Port Elizabeth, 2nd day, February 21, 2014
Having spent more than 150 overs in the field, Chris Rogers was trapped lbw early in Australia's reply © AFP
Enlarge

Alex Doolan and Shaun Marsh fell to a high quality first over from Parnell, nibbling the ball around on his home pitch and coaxing a pair of edges from batsmen not yet set. Neither Doolan nor Marsh could be heckled too harshly for this, given their sturdy efforts at Centurion. But nonetheless it was a circumstance in which they needed to be fully alert, and in Marsh's case his edge ran from a bat angled in the manner of his India horrors rather than straight as it had been last week.

Briefly, Clarke and David Warner countered, their aggression consistent with that of Brad Haddin and Steve Smith at critical moments against England. But they were not in control of proceedings, as Morne Morkel in particular extracted previously unseen life from the pitch, using every inch of his gargantuan frame and high arm action. When the wicket fell it was not to be Morkel, who was most unlucky to have Warner dropped by de Villiers of all people, a swift delivery not settling into the gloves. Instead Philander celebrated Clarke's waft to short cover, the captain defeated not by an excess of pace but a lack of it.

Most troubling of all for Australia is the fact that Clarke is now in the midst of something like a batting slump, having gone eight innings since he last reached 25 - his first innings century at Adelaide Oval. In statistical terms it is a streak unmatched in his career, though he did also struggle mightily in 2010-11, immediately before taking over the captaincy from Ricky Ponting.

While winning arrived so handsomely, Clarke's thin run of scores looked as much a blessing as a curse, showing that Australia were not entirely reliant on his batting. Now however it does become a matter for some concern, against opponents glimpsing a way back into a series that looked beyond them only days ago. Without a significant rearguard over the next three days, it will be Australia stuck in the principal's office, wondering how they came to be gazing helplessly at the slow moving clock of the world's best team instead of enjoying the sweet tastes of a winning African excursion.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by KabsCricki on (February 24, 2014, 7:52 GMT)

Beertjie, you misunderstand me. The Aussie fans were claiming S.A were slow and boring in the first innings but they were just making sure they got a total that put them in the driving seat. This was smart as they know Aus would come out and go for it. Its how they play and they would have wanted to knock of as many runs as possible to allow for a victory. By no means do I say S.A didn't outplay them; outsmarting is a facet of outplaying. As I said, the no.1 pace attack in the world cannot be taken lightly and S.A drew Australia into a situation where they had to go for runs and S.A got the 20 wickets and won the game with a day to spare when many were whining we were playing in a way that would only produce draw. Australia were never gonna come in and block and graft their way to a draw from day 2.

An end to the Simpsons analogy by Daniel Brettig: As Bart comes out of the classroom, Nelson points at him and goes, "Haaaa haaaa." All S.A fans have done the same to Australia......

Posted by StaalBurgher on (February 23, 2014, 18:52 GMT)

@TheBigBoodha - Dude, seriously. Stop posting. You have to take conditions and the opposition into account. Oz were bowling well and quick runs were difficult. SA didn't try to force a situation that wasn't possible. If they had they would've gotten a smaller total. Just look how the Test ended up. Plenty of time. 5 days is very long. Please get over this idea that Oz play the game in some "special" way. You either play good cricket or you don't. There is no point in players throwing their wickets away trying to play a way that they are not comfortable doing.

Posted by StaalBurgher on (February 23, 2014, 18:21 GMT)

I am getting mightily sick of this idea that a game must at all times be pushed forward. SA batted "slowly" in the 1st innings because Oz were bowling decently and the pitch was difficult. In some circumstances if you force the pace you get out. And then the credit goes to the bowlers for creating pressure and the batsmen are told they have no patience. Yet time after time you will see people on here carrying on about how SA are too slow. Too slow is seldom a problem in Test cricket. Not respecting the opposition (because they are allowed to play well you know), not analyzing the conditions and not playing cricket according is a big problem always.

Posted by sanhan on (February 23, 2014, 17:41 GMT)

@Boodha - This pitch showed the distinct difference between these two teams in this test. No pitch help, thus you have to rely on your own sources. Which of the two bowling units would you pick to win on a so-called 'unresponsive' pitch.

Posted by Beertjie on (February 23, 2014, 8:15 GMT)

No @KabsCricki on (February 22, 2014, 9:14 GMT), "Aus. tried to hit quick runs to attempt to knock off the 420 S.A posted but you can't do so against a class pace attack. Final analysis: S.A outsmarted Aus." No outsmarting here. Leading 1-0 you don't try "to hit quick runs". You get your head down and graft an innings which no one did. This shows alarming immaturity in the mind-set of the Aus. batsmen, but it would be stretching things to speak of trying to knock off the 420. What would be the point of that? No by going hard at the Aussies the Saffers ruffled their feathers thus showing their mental fragility. Guess we'll be able to judge their progress on this front soon enough inn the second innings.

Posted by   on (February 22, 2014, 13:35 GMT)

Interesting how many people call the Proteas as playing negative cricket. Does negative cricket put 423 on the board and bowl out your opponents for under 250? Please man. All out attack can sometimes leave the space for intellegence vacant. Smith might be struggling with bat but his experience in how to win is showing. Australia spend -150 overs fielding in the 1st innings, South Africa spent 57overs. Australia are back fielding with 15 odd overs in already with SA leading by 237 on Day 3. Its a test on the fitness of all those fielding. A stratergy Smith has used often to set up a Series decider.

Posted by Jagger on (February 22, 2014, 13:31 GMT)

Barring a miracle, this test is gone. Siddle was wicketless in the first innings when we needed just one more wicket on the first day to be into the tail. He is a non-penetrative bowler and is a liability in this side.

Our batting is notably fickle but we don't have anything to replace them with. No choice. This is not the case with our bowling. Clearly as day, Siddle should never have played this series and even those who have protected him must now be running out of patience. You can't keep picking a bloke who is continually third-best seamer when there are proven guns sitting on the bench. Stick-man Lyon proved he can do the job of Siddle now. Give him a chance to prove it. Siddle must go.

Posted by DragonCricketer on (February 22, 2014, 12:47 GMT)

Lyons good for a ton. His last 6 or 7 innings have resulted in centuries cut short due to lack of batting partners.

Posted by fair_paly_1 on (February 22, 2014, 9:42 GMT)

Australia dozed? But Wastson wasn't even playing?

Posted by KabsCricki on (February 22, 2014, 9:14 GMT)

Without disrespect I say the writer of this article is a little blinded by, is it, a sniff of bias? Australia came out to score quickly and look where they stand now. S.A took the time and patience to not only build a big first innings score but also to frustrate the Aussies. I don't think Mitchell Johnson is only a good bowler on certain pitches, that takes away from the man. This was just a very measured and focused performance from S.A. Now the S.A pace attack is no.1 but the Aus batting lineup isn't, so this is the reason for the swift dismissal of 6 wickets of 120 odd. Also , Aus tried to hit quick runs to attempt to knock off the 420 S.A posted but you can't do so against a class pace attack. Final analysis: S.A outsmarted Aus.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
Tour Results
South Africa v Australia at Centurion - Mar 14, 2014
Australia won by 6 wickets (with 30 balls remaining)
South Africa v Australia at Durban - Mar 12, 2014
Australia won by 5 wickets (with 2 balls remaining)
South Africa v Australia at Port Elizabeth - Mar 9, 2014
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
South Africa v Australia at Cape Town - Mar 1-5, 2014
Australia won by 245 runs
South Africa v Australia at Port Elizabeth - Feb 20-23, 2014
South Africa won by 231 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days